Blog Tools
Edit your Blog
Build a Blog
RSS Feed
View Profile
« December 2005 »
1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31
You are not logged in. Log in
Entries by Topic
All topics  «
2008 election
Foreign Policy
Political theory
Political trends
Jeff Maurer's Politics Blog
Tuesday, 27 December 2005
Fascist Salutes/Confederate Flags
Topic: News

  Paolo Di Canio, a striker for Italian club Lazio, has been suspended for making a fascist salue to fans after a match.  There is a little more grey area here than first meets the eye, in that: 1) In Italy, the fascist solute - which is identical to the "heil Hitler" salute - is associated more with Mussolini than Hitler, and 2) European clubs occasionally adopt symbols that then take on a meaning separate from their traditional one (in Holland, for example, Ajax fans call themselves the "Jews" and wave Israeli flags in support of their team.  I'm not saying that's okay, but that's what they do).  Lazio fans have adopted the swastika as one of their unofficial symbols, and they claim that they use it independently of its original meaning.  Di Canio, who is an admitted admirer of Mussolini, said: "I'm a fascist, not a racist." 

  If you think the line between fascist and racist seems too fine to parse, I agree with you.  If someone is giving fascist salutes, praising Mussolini, and encouraging fans to bring swastikas to matches, it is reasonable for people to assume that person is a racist.  That may not be the case: Di Canio is pro-immigration (a position that is much more liberal in Europe than it is in the US) and claims only to admire the populist and unifying characteristics of fascism.  But that doesn't negate a more important point: no matter what a symbol means to you, you can't simply ignore what it represents to reasonable people.

  This is the same point that I try to make to people who argue that the Confederate flag is not a racist symbol.  This issue hits home to me because I am a half southerner (I lived in Kentucky and southern Virginia for about 10 years growing up) and get embarrassed when I see southerners flying the Confederate flag.  People who do so usually argue that the flag represents southern heritage, not racism ("Heritage, not hate" is a popular bumper sticker in the South). 

  I've always felt that that argument is bullshit.  First, no matter how much revisionist historians may try to obscure this fact, slavery was the primary cause of the Civil War.  Of course, it's more complex than that, and I'm not saying that most Northerners were crusading against slavery, but the bottom line is: no slavery, no Civil War.  Second, the flag in question was resurrected specifically to protest the civil rights movement.  Most proponents of the confederate flag don't know this, but the flag that we generally recognize as the "Confederate flag" was actually the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia.  The actual Confederate flag was different; pollsters concluded that Georgia voters did not recognize it when they rejected incorporating it into their state flag in a 2003 referendum.  The red square with the blue "X" only gained prominence due to two post-Civil War events: 1) It became the unofficial flag of the KKK, 2) In 1962, South Carolina began flying it over the state capitol to protest the civil rights movement.  Because these are the primary events with which the Confederate flag is associated, I've always considered it a racist symbol, and I think it is entirely reasonable for me to do so.

  My point: it is impossible to disassociate the Confederate flag with racism.  People who fly it might not be racist, but they are ignorant if they don't realize that reasonable people will conclude that its display constitutes a racist statement.  The same goes for Paolo Di Canio's fascist salute: even if he is actually just a really big fan of trains running on time, you can't simply ignore the violence, xenophobia, anti-Semitism, and war-mongering that that salute came to represent.  If you want to be proud of your heritage, educate someone about Mark Twain or Michelangelo; the racist symbols don't paint you in a good light.

Posted by jeffmaurer1980 at 1:49 PM EST
Post Comment | Permalink
Monday, 19 December 2005
Dinosaurs Existed
Topic: Religion

  The Mariners recently signed Carl Everett, which bothers me for two reasons.  First, the Mariners - unlike the Oakland A's - apparently do not look at three year trends when making personnel decisions.  If they had, they would see that Carl Everett is player on a steady decline in spite of the fact that he has played left-handed-hitter friendly parks.  This is probably one of the reasons why the A's kick our asses every year with half the payroll.  My predictions for Carl Everett in 2006: 100 games played, .235, 14 HR, 2 ejections, 3 things said about Ichiro that, upon closer inspection, are incredibly racist, 6 quotes "taken out of context", 1 Texas Rangers fan karate-chopped in the throat, 322 references to himself in the third person.

  But here's the other thing that bothers me: Carl Everett does not believe in dinosaurs.  He thinks they're somehow made up.  I read this before Ryan Conner mentioned on his blog that a friend of a friend also does not believe in dinosaurs.  Unless the friend of the friend is Carl Everett, that means that there are at least two people walking around who do not believe in dinosaurs.  Which means that now is a good time to address something that I've been meaning to address for a while: if you claim to literally believe everything in the Bible, you are a fucking moron.

  Let me rephrase: if you claim to literally believe everything in the Bible, you don't know what you're talking about.  And I say this not because of dinosaurs, which I actually can't prove existed any more than I can prove that Abraham Lincoln existed.  Also, I say this not because of any of the other completely erroneous stuff in the Bible, such as the sun revolving around the earth, every species of animal in the world fitting onto an ark about the size of two Boeing 747s, people living six hundred-plus years, or the universe being configured like a giant snow globe with stars painted on the top.  I'll give a free pass on all of this stuff because: 1) I understand that God can do whatever He wants, so ordinary laws of nature don't apply, and 2) I don't need those arguments to prove that people who take the Bible literally are fucking morons.

  People who claim to take the Bible literally are morons (fucking morons, to be precise) because the Bible very clearly contradicts itself numerous times.  Therefore, it is impossible to take the Bible literally.  Next time someone says that they believe everything in the Bible, I recommend trying to get them to explain one of these contradictions:

1.  In the first two chapters of Genesis, there is a clear contradiction involving the creation story that Bible thumpers claim to know so well.  In Genesis 1:26-27, God creates man and woman on the sixth day:

[26] And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
[27] So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

God then rests on the seventh day, and on the eighth day, apparently forgetting what just happened, creates man again in a totally different way in Genesis 2:7:

[7] And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Then, after creating all the beasts of the Earth again for some reason, God creates woman yet again in a totally different way in Genesis 2:21-23:

[21] And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
[22] And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
[23] And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

  Hmm...suspicious.  It's almost as if two popular creation stories circulating the region at the time Genesis was authored were incorporated so that people could accept Judiasm without drastically changing their beliefs, or that one story was there at one point and another was tacked on at some unspecified later time for similar reasons.  But let me continue...

2.  This is a nice, simple contradiction that is incredibly obvious from a story that everyone knows.  Genesis 7:8-9 tells the story of Noah loading the animals two by two into the ark:

[8] Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth,
[9] There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.

But only six verses earlier, God specifically instructs Noah to take seven pairs of each animal (except for the "unclean" ones, meaning basically pigs, lobsters, and crabs) into the ark:

[2] Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.
[3] Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.

3.  My personal favorite: everyone knows that Jesus was crucified on Good Friday and rose from the dead three days later on Easter Sunday.  How many days between Friday and Sunday? 

  My point here is not that the Bible is worthless or that Christians are stupid (I consider myself a Christian), but simply that the Bible can't be taken literally.  Centuries of poor translations, poor transcriptions, and intentional fabrication and deception by people who found cause to do so have left it riddled with mistakes.  For centuries, people have altered and added to the Bible to make things fit the conditions of their particular time and place.  Most biblical scholars believe, for example, that the Friday to Sunday being counted as three days problem stems from a combination of misinterpretation and a desire to bring the story in line with the customs of the various times and places in which the Gospels were written.  In my opinion, the Bible can still be useful if you assume the stories to be allegorical and focus on the larger message, but if you claim to take it literally you either haven't read as far as Genesis 2:7 or are a complete fucking moron.

Posted by jeffmaurer1980 at 1:50 PM EST
Post Comment | Permalink
Thursday, 15 December 2005
Conservatism and Liberalism
Topic: Political theory

  Slow day today, so I'll go ahead and write about something that I've talked about with people but never written down.

  What follows is how I think of the political spectrum.  Political scientists often make grids, or Vin diagrams, or various other axes to describe the spectrum of political ideologies.  Here's a common one that you might have seen:

  In this diagram, desired level of government involvement is the explanatory variable.  I have also seen similar diagrams that use concern for the individual (as opposed to concern for the collective) or concern for the working class as explanatory variables.  These analyses, though accurate and descriptive (except for the one that examines concern for the working class, which has nothing to say about social issues or foreign policy whatsoever), fail to describe why people hold the views that they do on the vast spectrum of political issues. 

  The government involvement explanation and the concern for the individual explanation (which, it seems to me, uses "concern for the collective" as an exact proxy for "government involvement") fail to explain a number of anomalies that result from their analyses.  Why, for example, are the two cognitively inconsistent political viewpoints (liberalism and conservatism) also by far the most common?  Why is it true that certain policy preferences tend to correlate in spite of the fact that the arguments in favor of those policies are often diametrically opposed (for example, people who are pro-choice tend to also favor regulation of businesses, even though the first resists government intervention while the second encourages it.  Similarly, people who favor low taxes also tend to support anti-sodomy laws)?  In addition, political ideologies sometimes defy these compartments; on the issue of gun control (a social issue), liberals encourage government involvement while conservatives want the government to stay away.  Likewise, conservatives are more likely to favor government support for failing businesses (sometimes called corporate welfare) than are liberals.  Furthermore, what can explain views on foreign policy, which also tend to correlate with political ideologies but in a way not addressed by the chart above?  Current theories fail to describe the logic that underlies the most common political viewpoints.

  In my opinion, the factor that determines whether a person is a conservative or a liberal is their view of what I call the "traditional status quo".  The more a person desires change from the traditional status quo, the more liberal that person is.

  Essential to understanding this definition is understanding what I mean by "traditional status quo".  The tradition status quo DOES NOT refer to the way things CURRNETLY are; it refers to things AS THEY WERE BELIEVED TO BE at an unspecified point in time.  It is not a year, nor is it a set of factors that can be objectively measured; it is a thing that existed at some point in the past.  For example, in this country, I generally consider the traditional status quo to be "America".  Plug "America" into my original sentence: in the U.S. what determines whether a person is conservative or liberal is their view of America.   All of the traditions and things generally associated with America make up the traditional status quo.  The things associated with the traditional status quo change over time, and the traditional status quo can be different things in different places (it depends what are the traditions and valued institutions), but most people in a political culture are generally oriented relative to the same status quo.  And, ultimately, a person's feelings about that traditional status quo will determine whether they are conservative or liberal.

  As I mentioned, I generally consider the traditional status quo in this country to be America.  I use the term "America" instead of "United States" because "America" evokes a more generalized visceral reaction, and the traditional status quo is a difficult to define, difficult to nail down thing.  It is more of a feeling than anything else.  It is meant to be what people view as traditional and accepted.  It involves specific practices and values, but precisely what those practices and values are is impossible to determine.  Similarly, precisely where we currently are in relation to the traditional status quo is impossible to determine; that traditional status quo existed at some time in the past, and our current point in time represents some unspecified level of change from that original point.

  The more a person desires change from the traditional status quo, the more liberal that person is.  Therefore, the ultimate conservative wants a complete return to the traditional status quo; they want to turn back the clock all the way to year zero (remember, the present represents a change from the traditional status quo).  Conversely, the ultimate liberal dislikes everything about the traditional status quo and wants total change; they want to turn the clock forward to what they believe to be the future.  The ultimate moderate supports all changes that have been made to the traditional status quo up to the current point in time but will support no others; they want to freeze the clock.

  To put this theory into a relevant context, let's once again use America as the traditional status quo.  Though, as I mentioned, it is impossible to determine precisely what traditions and values "America" represents, a generally agreed upon list might include: military strength, the Christian religion (and the restrained sexual practices associated with it), low taxes, small government, capitalism/free markets/private industry, the rugged individualist/self-reliance, family, racial purity/Anglicanism.

  How does that list sound?  Does it sound like music to the ears of an ultra-conservative?  Is it also a list of everything every ultra-liberal hates?  If there's anything to my theory, it should.  Please note: this is not meant to be a description of present-day conservativism (I'm sure that "racial purity" pissed off most conservatives reading this).  This is America as it used to be.  If you have negative associations with some of the things on the list, you are not an ultra-conservative.  Anyway, things break down like this:

   One strange feature of this axis continuum is that conservatives are on the left, while liberals are on the right.  I understand that that is confusing.  But I've arranged it like I have in order to demonstrate the temporal relation of the viewpoints; liberals, for better or for worse, seek change, whereas conservatives, for better or for worse, think we not only should resist change, but that we should go back to the way things used to be.  I believe that this theory explains the following phenomenon:

1.  Conservatives are more demonstrably patriotic than liberals.  Al Franken once said that conservatives "love America like a four-year-old loves their Mommy.  Everything Mommy says and does is good, and anyone who criticizes Mommy is bad."  This, I feel, is an accurate depiction of many conservatives' attitude, and seems to stem from a general reverence for America.  They root for America like a sports team; they identify with it, and they wave their colors proudly.  Ultra-liberals, on the other hand, are often described (sometimes accurately) as the "blame America first crowd". 

2.  Younger people tend to be more liberal than older people.  Younger people feel a need to rebel against authority.  The concept of America represents authority, causing young people to rebel against it, resulting in views that are generally liberal.   Older people, however, who came of age in a time when current values more closely resembled the traditional status quo, tend to be more conservative in their beliefs.

3.  Conservatives are very nostalgic for the past.  Conservatives often have a glorified, even idealized view of the past - much more so than liberals.  They speak of eroding values, crumbling families, and moral decline.  These sentiments reflect a sense of social decline that is only possible if one assumes that times past were preferable.

4.  Conservatives embrace the term "conservative", while liberals prefer the term "progressive".  In a rare case of accuracy in political labeling, conservatives do, in fact seek to conserve: specifically, they seek to conserve the values of the past and resist change.  Liberals, on the other hand, usually prefer the term "progressive", indicating their belief that the policies they promote constitute progress.

5.  Liberals generally believe in a much more active government.  Democrats like to refer to themselves as the "party of ideas."  Conservative activist Grover Norquist, on the other hand, expresses the sentiment of many conservatives when he says: "I don't want to eliminate government.  I just want to make it small enough to drag into the bathroom and drown in the tub."  Liberals are unsatisfied with things the way they are, and therefore they develop programs in an attempt to fix the problems they see.  Conservatives, in contrast, spend much of their time attempting to undo what liberals have done, creating very little of their own.

6.  Conservatives invoke the founding fathers much more than liberals.  Conservatives often cite the founding fathers in the course of arguments against change.  Strict constructionists, in particular, have a great deal of reverence for the founding fathers.  They decry "activists" who seek to change what they believe to be the intent of those who existed during the idealized time in the past.

7.  Conservatives are more likely than liberals to be deferential to authority.  One of the primary characteristics of Adorno's "authoritarian personality" is obedience to and reverence for authority.  Conservatives are generally more likely than liberals to have unyielding respect for sources of authority, such as parents and the church.  Their politics tend to be conservative because this same impulse drives them to have unyielding respect for the concept of America as well.

  If we look at extreme cases of conservatism and liberalism, the ways in which a person's orientation relative to the traditional status quo manifests itself become more clear.  The Nazis, who can be considered extreme conservatives, aggressively promoted things that they considered to be traditionally German - be it in art, music, or sports - and railed against the forces that they believed were conspiring to destroy the idyllic, pre-World War I Germanic existence.  On the other end of the spectrum, the Communists, who - whether in the Soviet Union, China, or Cambodia - were extreme liberals, threw out every vestige of the past and attempted to accelerate progress towards what they believed to be the future.

  I believe that a person's feelings about the traditional status quo is the best explanatory variable for the wide range political beliefs that constitute conservatism and liberalism.  Conservatives believe in small government, codification of majority values, and an America-fist foreign policy because that is what this country has traditionally done (that is, historically we have done these things more than we presently do).  Meanwhile, liberals are unsatisfied with the way things have traditionally been done, and therefore seek change in all three areas (the opposite of an America-first foreign policy being a foreign policy that takes into account the rights of other peoples).  I feel that this theory explains why there is an apparent contradiction within the two predominant political views and why certain behavioral characteristics tend to correlate with certain political viewpoints.

Posted by jeffmaurer1980 at 1:51 PM EST
Post Comment | Permalink

Newer | Latest | Older